An updated, in-depth study of Agathokles of Syracuse is long overdue. The late-fourth to early-third century ruler has suffered a relative lack of attention when compared with his Deinomenid and Dionysian predecessors, and indeed when compared with the later figure of Hiero II. Thankfully, Christopher de Lisle proves more than capable of filling this gap with his admirable volume, a revision of his 2017 doctoral thesis at Oxford University. The last major work solely on Agathokles was that of Sebastiana Consolo Langher in 2000,[1] a work that followed the traditional line of depicting Agathokles as ‘abandoning Classical tyranny in favour of a new, Hellenistic style of rule’ (p.5). Later works, particularly those of Caroline Lehmler,[2] Efrem Zambon,[3] and Matthias Haake,[4] examined Agathokles in conjunction with Hiero II, and again argue for a more Hellenistic style of rule by these later Sicilian rulers. De Lisle opposes this conclusion, and the resulting monograph sets the study of Agathokles and indeed of the wider western Mediterranean on a new footing.
The crucial point of the volume is established very early on, with de Lisle arguing that, rather than view Agathokles as either a Classical tyrant or a Hellenistic monarch, we should recognise him as a figure who successfully combined elements of both styles of rule (p.1-2). In addition, to counter the historiographical division of the pre-Roman Mediterranean into western and eastern halves with little or no interaction between them, de Lisle well demonstrates the continuity in Sicilian interactions with the Greek mainland pre- and post-323.
The first chapter provides a chronological overview of Agathokles’ life and career. Source material for periods of Agathokles’ reign are sparse, but de Lisle puts forward a thoroughly convincing chronology of his activities in Sicily and abroad, particularly when examining the later years of his reign. The remaining eight chapters are divided into three separate parts that focus, respectively, on representations of Agathokles in our literary sources and on coinage, Agathokles’ adoption of the royal title, and Agathokles’ interactions in Sicily and with external powers. The tripartite structure proves an effective method for de Lisle to counter in a methodical way the depiction of Agathokles as either Classical or Hellenistic. Each subsequent chapter efficiently demonstrates that Agathokles’ actions are best understood as a combination of continuity with his predecessors and contemporary methods that are more in line with the model of the Diadochoi.
In Chapter Two, de Lisle tackles the literary material we have for Agathokles, for whom there is very little contemporary literary or epigraphical evidence. He focuses largely on Diodoros, arguing that we should turn away from focusing on assigning numerous passages of Diodoran text to earlier authors such as Kallias or Timaios based on their positive or negative depiction of Agathokles, since there is no convincing way of doing this. Instead, de Lisle argues that Diodoros adopted past tales of Agathokles and adapted them to fulfil his own motivations in representing Agathokles. While Diodoros’ depiction of Agathokles uses many familiar tropes of sole rule, such as his debauchery, low birth, and his role as general, this simply supports de Lisle’s hypothesis that Agathokles is best understood within the broader tradition of Greek autocracy rather than shoe-horned into the category of either Sicilian tyrant or Hellenistic king.
Chapter Three expands on some of the stereotypes of sole rule in relation to Agathokles which the author first introduced in the previous chapter. Here de Lisle falls broadly into line with numerous other works on depictions of sole rule, noting the presentation of Agathokles as sacrilegious, of low birth, excessively violent and cruel, and of a physically large stature. While de Lisle does well to show in detail how these were aligned with Agathokles’ predecessors and the Diadochoi, his relation of these stereotypes to broader understandings of Greek autocracy could be expanded. As de Lisle points out, these stereotypes were not limited solely to a Sicilian context or to Hellenistic monarchy but were representations of a wider understanding of Greek autocracy. Yet this is not given the same level of depth as other recent studies on the topic.[5]
The examination of numismatic evidence in Chapter Four demonstrates de Lisle’s strengths with an excellent overview of Agathokles’ coinage that far supersedes the recent analysis of Caroline Lehmler. This analysis systematically dismantles Lehmler’s suggestion that Agathokles’ coinage shows a progression from a local tyranny to a Hellenistic monarchy. Where previously Agathoklean coins featuring the ΣΥΡΑΚΟΣΙΩΝ legend have been interpreted as preceding his adoption of the royal title, de Lisle proves that these continued to be minted right up until Agathokles’ death. That coins could continue to be minted under the polis name while it was under sole rulership has precedent elsewhere, notably in Thessaly under Jason of Pherai. The circulation of Agathokles’ coinage is examined in greater detail in this volume than elsewhere, and de Lisle draws on coin hoard data to demonstrate Agathoklean activity overseas, thereby supporting his earlier chronological construction of Agathokles’ later years in Chapter One.[6]
Part Two of the book consists of one chapter (Five) that examines Agathokles’ adoption of the royal title basileus around 304 BC. Perhaps the reason that the chapter stands alone in Part Two is that the crux of de Lisle’s argument is in this chapter, successfully countering the notion that Agathokles’ style of rule immediately changed following his adoption of the royal title to one more in line with the Hellenistic template. Whereas Sebastiana Consolo Langher, and Helmut Berve before her, argued that Agathokles’ adoption of the title heralded a change from polis tyrant to Hellenistic basileus, de Lisle demonstrates how the use of nomenclature as a legitimising agent was employed by Agathokles’ predecessors with the office of strategos autokrator. Agathokles simply used a pre-existing method of expressing legitimacy, that of nomenclature, but adapted it for the current Hellenistic context in his use of basileus; ‘that this [adoption of the royal title] was a transformative moment is a creation of modern historiography’ (p.176).
Chapters Six to Nine examine Agathokles’ interactions within Sicily and then with Carthage, Italy, and Greece and the Diadochoi. De Lisle’s overview of Agathokles’ rise to power and his various conflicts with the Syracusan and Sicilian exiles clarifies the notoriously convoluted and confusing factional politics at play in Greek Sicily from the late 320s to 303/2 BC and demonstrates just how reliant Syracusan stability was on Agathokles as an individual. The author argues as well that the patterns of movement first established during the conflict between Agathokles and Carthage acted as a blueprint for the later rivalry between Rome and Carthage. The author’s strengths as a numismatist again come into play when examining Agathokles’ role in Magna Graecia. He convincingly maintains that the level of control assigned to Agathokles in Magna Graecia by Charles Seltman based on numismatic evidence is inaccurate.[7]
There are a few minor criticisms. One is that, given the increasingly interwoven nature of foreign policy in the Mediterranean in this period, some of the content of the last four chapters is repeated from the detailed chronological overview of Chapter One. A second is that the quality of maps in the helpful appendix to Chapter Four used to highlight the coin hoard data and circulation is far too low and difficult to interpret. The maps that feature in the Front Matter are far more effective.[8] Other minor issues are the failure to differentiate between ‘Greek’ Sicily and Sicily as a whole on some occasions (e.g., p.191 – “ruler of Sicily”), and perhaps placing too great an emphasis on Agathokles’ role in preventing an invasion from the Diadochoi given that we have very little concrete evidence to suggest this was ever seriously considered. The examination of Agathokles’ use of civic institutions would also benefit from a definition of what the author understands an institution to be to help clarify the argument.[9]
Agathokles of Syracuse: Sicilian Tyrant and Hellenistic King will be essential reading for scholars of Agathocles, Hellenistic Sicily, and to scholars of sole rule more generally. The volume is well-written and extensively researched and more than fills the noticeable gap in scholarship of Sicilian sole rulers. The volume’s strength lies especially in de Lisle’s ability to explain very complex scenarios with clarity in order to make his argument accessible to both students and scholars. The treatment of the numismatic evidence, and the chronological model of Agathokles’ coinage put forward by de Lisle will also no doubt prove influential in future scholarship.
Notes
[1] Consolo Langher, S. (2000). Agatocle: da capoparte a monarca fondatore di un regno tra Cartagine e i Diadochi. Messina.
[2] Lehmler, C. (2005). Syrakus unter Agathokles und Hieron II: die Verbindung von Kultur und Macht in einer hellenistischen Metropole. Berlin.
[3] Zambon, E. (2006). ‘From Agathocles to Hiero II: The Birth and the Development of Basileia in Hellenistic Sicily’ in S. Lewis (ed.), Ancient Tyranny. Edinburgh, 77-92.
[4] Haake, M. (2013). ‘Agathocles and Hiero II: Two Sole Rulers in the Hellenistic Age and the Question of Succession’ in N. Luraghi (ed.), The Splendors and Miseries of Ruling Alone. Wiesbaden, 99-128.
[5] See for example, Parker, V. (2007). ‘Tyrants and Lawgivers’ in H.A. Shapiro (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Archaic Greece. Cambridge, 13-40; Luraghi, N. (ed.) (2013). The Splendors and Miseries of Ruling Alone.Wiesbaden; Börm, H. (ed.), (2015), Antimonarchic Discourse in Antiquity. Stuttgart. Given de Lisle’s focus is specifically on Agathokles this is perhaps somewhat understandable.
[6] The numismatic analysis should also firmly discredit the continued influence of Barclay Head’s model of Agathoklean coinage that places it into three distinct chronological categories, with de Lisle demonstrating a significant overlap in all three, with ‘different legends co-existing on different denominations simultaneously’ (p.101).
[7] Seltman, C.T. (1912). ‘The Influence of Agathokles on the Coinage of Magna Graecia’, Numismatic Chronicle 12, 1-13.
[8] The e-book version at least has the maps in colour, but they remain small and cumbersome. De Lisle states that ‘hoards and small finds are indicated with different symbols – a diamond and a circle respectively’ (p.102), but these are almost indistinguishable.
[9] There are some small typing errors, for instance ‘thcgqiose’ rather than ‘those’ (p.95), ‘The’ rather than ‘the’ (p.120). ‘kept’ rather than ‘keep’ (p.200), and an extra ‘the’ (p.259) but these are few and far between.